ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2019
Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
74 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic synthesis of CRISPR/Cas applications for enhancing salt tolerance in crops: a decade of progress and challenges.BMC plant biology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Horizon scanning of potential environmental applications of terrestrial animals, fish, algae and microorganisms produced by genetic modification, including the use of new genomic techniques.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Pooled it
- Genome editing for vegetable crop improvement: Challenges and future prospects.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Pooled it
- Which Factors Affect the Occurrence of Off-Target Effects Caused by the Use of CRISPR/Cas: A Systematic Review in Plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Pooled it
- Microbial Production of Alternative Proteins for Food Applications: Advances, Industrial Challenges, and Regulatory Status.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Environmental Risk Assessment and Confinement of Genetically Engineered Trees with an Emphasis on Vegetative Reproduction.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Chemical Signaling and Metabolomic Crosstalk in Endophytic Fungi-Medicinal Plant Symbioses for Natural Product Discovery and Sustainable Bioproduction.Metabolites · 2026Review
- Microbial consortia and drought tolerance- A paradigm shift towards agro-ecological sustainability.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- Beyond GMOs: transgene-free gene-edited crops for global food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Governance Perspectives on Genetically Modified Animals for Agriculture and Aquaculture: Challenges for the Assessment of Environmental Risks and Broader Societal Concerns.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Emerging trends in transgene-free crop development: insights into genome editing and its regulatory overview.Plant molecular biology · 2025Review
- Complexity Meets Risk-The Next Generation of Genome-Edited Plants Challenges Established Concepts for Environmental Risk Assessment in the EU.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- UV-Induced Mutants ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Genetically Modified Animal-Derived Products: From Regulations to Applications.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Suitability of Real-Time PCR Methods for New Genomic Technique Detection in the Context of the European Regulations: A Case Study in Arabidopsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Environmental Applications of GM Microorganisms: Tiny Critters Posing Huge Challenges for Risk Assessment and Governance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Translocation of green fluorescent protein in homo- and hetero-transgrafted plants.Plant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- An Isoflavone Synthase Gene inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as "new (breeding) techniques" in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the characteristics of the resulting product. A key question is whether regulatory frameworks either based on process- or product-oriented triggers are more advantageous for the regulation of nGM applications. We analyzed regulatory frameworks for GMO from different countries covering both trigger systems with a focus on their applicability to plants developed by various nGMs. The study is based on a literature analysis and qualitative interviews with regulatory experts and risk assessors of GMO in the respective countries. The applied principles of risk assessment are very similar in all investigated countries independent of the applied trigger for regulation. Even though the regulatory trigger is either process- or product-oriented, both triggers systems show features of the respective other in practice. In addition our analysis shows that both trigger systems have a number of generic advantages and disadvantages, but neither system can be regarded as superior at a general level. More decisive for the regulation of organisms or products, especially nGM applications, are the variable criteria and exceptions used to implement the triggers in the different regulatory frameworks. There are discussions and consultations in some countries about whether changes in legislation are necessary to establish a desired level of regulation of nGMs. We identified five strategies for countries that desire to regulate nGM applications for biosafety-ranging from applying existing biosafety frameworks without further amendments to establishing new stand-alone legislation. Due to varying degrees of nGM regulation, international harmonization will supposedly not be achieved in the near future. In the context of international trade, transparency of the regulatory status of individual nGM products is a crucial issue. We therefore propose to introduce an international public registry listing all biotechnology products commercially used in agriculture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.